As more and more cities (and entire states) go bankrupt - the Federal government will try to force the solvent states to redistribute their wealth to support the bankrupt ones. The states that are partly solvent will resent being asked to to support states that made bad decisions (i.e. subsidization of millions of illegals / welfare populations + bloated pensions to state unions etc).

This scenario is quite possible and we are seeing some foreshadowing of it already. If it plays out to to its endgame - the Federal government will be unable to enforce compliance like it did during the civil war under Lincoln.

By this time the Feds will be so far in debt that they are spending all their money paying the interest on the national debt. They will unable to borrow any more money from other countries and thus will not have the money or national will to start a civil war against those states that refuse to pay for the bankrupt states.

I think this will the the dividing issue - the solvents states will refuse to subsidize the bankrupt states who made fiscal decisions that caused their bankruptcy.

Might take 30 years but it is the direction we are heading unless we make a big course correction

smokeyCityTeacher wrote:Might take 30 years but it is the direction we are heading unless we make a big course correction

I have to agree with you.

I ask - if you voluntarily join a club, do you have the right to end the relationship at any time it no longer meets your needs. The Southern states said yes and left the Union of States as they felt there were able to under the Constitution. The North said no and we fought a horrific war.

Flash forward to today. The federal government is no longer meeting the needs of the states nor is it meeting it’s obligations under the Constitution. The federal government takes great piles of our money in the form of taxes and then ignores the will of the people and places unfunded mandates on the states. Education is just one such example. Health care is another. Medicaid for the poor is another. How about the EPA mandates? The list goes on. Understand I'm not saying do away with any of those programs, just that these programs belong at the state level. If we stopped sending our money to DC we could easily afford them but it should be our decision to do so.

The list of such programs goes on forever. How long is it going to be before we reach our limits and each state asks the question “if you voluntarily join a club, do you have the right to end the relationship at any time it no longer meets your needs.” I agree with smokeyCityTeacher, more and more states are going to be asking themselves that question and I think that you can say it’s going to be sooner rather then later.

Personally, I see a need for the continued presence of a reduced federal government; something that is reduced to those items delineated in the Constitution. Everything else is better done at the state level. Will it happen peacefully? Remember the oath of federal office is to first “uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” Then it speaks of the all the other obligations. Will the people or states uphold the constitution or will they follow the demands of the Federal government?" What would happen if they chose to uphold the Constitution and started sending only money to DC that is required under the Constitution, would the Federal government be able to stop them? Would they use military force? Would the military go along with it. I guess time will tell. Lisa

Now lets get real. There are no states and I mean no states that would be solvent without the Federal government propping up and subsidizing them. A state that would pull out of being in the United States would not have the credit rating nor the funds to deal with unemployment, welfare, roads/highways and a multitude of other services that are funded by the Fed. Rendell, the currant Gov. of Pa. wants to make I80 a toll road to send the funds to Pittsburgh and Philly to help there mass transit. The next Governor will do the same as has the previous Gov. There is no city, town, county, township that does not rely on the funds given to them from the Fed. and to stop receiving money from the Fed. the cities, towns, county's, and townships would all have to raise taxes to a point that everyone would move to another state leaving the receding state to be taken over by another state or country.

And if thats not enough.............How much do you think it would cost a state to rent or even lease the military for a year or so if there was any kind of problem.

What about a catastrophe in the succeeded state, flood, earth quake, tornado, even the flu.

Come on get a grip and realize that making a wave isn't a problem solver it's just a wave to confuse people of whats really going on.

Waaaaaay too much time to kick around. No civil war, and if a state wants to leave, the result would be the same as before.Make no mistake, the union will be preserved at any cost. Fleeting political winds of the moment are nothing in the big picture.Todays hot and heavy debate will not be remembered tomorrow. Secede from the Union? Makes for great fiction, if tried for real, would be a suicide pact writ large.

Many people are feed up with the status quo. Reality? Who's reality? Where does the Federal government get the money that is spreads around with strings attached? States that managed their affairs responsibly would do very well eventually barring a military conflict were everyone looses. I don't want to see the country ripped apart but the insane policies coming from DC have us on a road to ruin and if things don't change it is going to self-destruct. Debt will destroy us. DC is drunk with power, spending borrowed money we are all on the hook for and what will we have to show for it when it can't be sustained any longer? What is the financial end game? You don't cure an alcoholic by giving him another drink. You don't cure a coke addict by giving him another bag of powder. They have to want to be cured and STOP the harmful behaviors. If our governments don't STOP spending OUR money recklessly it will end bad.

Nations collapse in every century - the remaining pieces band togetherClearly certain groups of states would band together.

It happened to the USSROf course it could never happen to us.

And where does the federal government get that money to help states ?They print the money or take it off the states.

SO - Who needs Whom ?I think you have got it backwards

jeromemsn wrote:Now lets get real. There are no states and I mean no states that would be solvent without the Federal government propping up and subsidizing them. A state that would pull out of being in the United States would not have the credit rating nor the funds to deal with unemployment, welfare, roads/highways and a multitude of other services that are funded by the Fed. Rendell, the currant Gov. of Pa. wants to make I80 a toll road to send the funds to Pittsburgh and Philly to help there mass transit. The next Governor will do the same as has the previous Gov. There is no city, town, county, township that does not rely on the funds given to them from the Fed. and to stop receiving money from the Fed. the cities, towns, county's, and townships would all have to raise taxes to a point that everyone would move to another state leaving the receding state to be taken over by another state or country.

And if thats not enough.............How much do you think it would cost a state to rent or even lease the military for a year or so if there was any kind of problem.

What about a catastrophe in the succeeded state, flood, earth quake, tornado, even the flu.

Come on get a grip and realize that making a wave isn't a problem solver it's just a wave to confuse people of whats really going on.

So the receding states would be able to print there own money? the united states would end up more or less like Africa or better yet like Russia. If a State didn't pay for the gas they used I guess what would be left of the United States would just shut off the main line. Maybe it would end up similar to Mexico a drug cartels haven for the state or states that would succeed, since they would not be able to fight the war on drugs on there own. I say let a state succeed so we can see how it works, let the state that could actually have a shot at being able to pull it off be the first.

Lets see if there going to print there own money then they would have to have resources to sell to raise capital for there monetary system, that might include Alaska, Texas, Montana, Utah, well just pick any state and lets play this out and see where it goes.

I agree - let them separate if they wishsort of a "political pro choice" position

When the nations financial infrastructure collapses states will be better off alone

OK, so take good care of your health and well resume this thread in 30 years

jeromemsn wrote:So the receding states would be able to print there own money? the united states would end up more or less like Africa or better yet like Russia. If a State didn't pay for the gas they used I guess what would be left of the United States would just shut off the main line. Maybe it would end up similar to Mexico a drug cartels haven for the state or states that would succeed, since they would not be able to fight the war on drugs on there own. I say let a state succeed so we can see how it works, let the state that could actually have a shot at being able to pull it off be the first.

Lets see if there going to print there own money then they would have to have resources to sell to raise capital for there monetary system, that might include Alaska, Texas, Montana, Utah, well just pick any state and lets play this out and see where it goes.

jeromemsn wrote:So the receding states would be able to print there own money? the united states would end up more or less like Africa or better yet like Russia. If a State didn't pay for the gas they used I guess what would be left of the United States would just shut off the main line. Maybe it would end up similar to Mexico a drug cartels haven for the state or states that would succeed, since they would not be able to fight the war on drugs on there own. I say let a state succeed so we can see how it works, let the state that could actually have a shot at being able to pull it off be the first.

Lets see if there going to print there own money then they would have to have resources to sell to raise capital for there monetary system, that might include Alaska, Texas, Montana, Utah, well just pick any state and lets play this out and see where it goes.

You really need to look a little wider. Apart from the Federal government sending troops in like last time, why couldn't any particular state control itself.

Europe did pretty well for several centuries. Everyone had their own rules, own money, etc.

Money is what everyone agrees it is. You think those scraps of cotton in your wallet are money? Why?

Virginia used tobacco leaves for decades. Many towns print their own money. Disneyland has it's own money. It just has to be something that other people recognize and accept as payment for goods and services.

Everything else is manageable. There isn't any reason why any state or states COULDN'T govern themselves.

You might recall that about two years ago, a well respected Russian think tank group was predicting the eventual breakup of the United States. They even went so far to forcast the resulting regions. It was weird to read and think about it then, but now, it makes one wonder if they were on to something. Glad I'm on a hillside, it'll be easier to build my underground bunker and fortunately I have access to a coal seam on the property.

[quote="jeromemsn"]Now lets get real. There are no states and I mean no states that would be solvent without the Federal government propping up and subsidizing them. A state that would pull out of being in the United States would not have the credit rating nor the funds to deal with unemployment, welfare, roads/highways and a multitude of other services that are funded by the Fed. Rendell, the currant Gov. of Pa. wants to make I80 a toll road to send the funds to Pittsburgh and Philly to help there mass transit. The next Governor will do the same as has the previous Gov. There is no city, town, county, township that does not rely on the funds given to them from the Fed. and to stop receiving money from the Fed. the cities, towns, county's, and townships would all have to raise taxes to a point that everyone would move to another state leaving the receding state to be taken over by another state or country.[quote]

Yeah, let’s get real, how solvent do you think the states would become if able to keep almost all of the money they raise through taxes. Think about it, why is the Federal government telling VA that they need a secondary new road. The people who live in the area should be telling the state government that based on local business trends and they should be paying for it. The only exception would be interstates that have a national defense mission. Why is the Federal Government involved in how individual states treat their citizens. If you don’t like how you’re treated, move to another state. That’s how it was in years gone past. I know a lot of people who left states because the schools weren’t good. That doesn’t happen anymore because of the federal government. I know elder folks who move to no income states after retirement. That’s the same concept.

[quote="jeromemsn"]And if thats not enough.............How much do you think it would cost a state to rent or even lease the military for a year or so if there was any kind of problem. [quote]

Gee, who do you think pays for the State National Guard unless it is nationalized by the Federal Government. That comes out of your state's budget and it would continue to function very well, thank you very much. The state also owns all of the equipment unless it’s nationalized. What kind of problem do you think there would be anyway? The governor is the commander of the State National Guard and they would deploy at his discretion just as they do now.

[quote="jeromemsn"]What about a catastrophe in the succeeded state, flood, earth quake, tornado, even the flu. [quote]

Gee, how did we ever get along without the federal government?

Interestingly enough, I’m reading a book which answers that exact question. The book, “7 Events That Made America, America” Chapter 3, “Johnstown fights a flood.” I think every American should read this book, it will really open your eyes. Anyway, it seems up to about 1910 the American people did just fine responding to natural catastrophes which occurred in the United States. They included the Johnstown Flood, the Galveston Hurricane of 1902 and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Surprisingly enough ordinary citizens and churches rushed appropriate aid to the survivors and lots of it; all without government intervention. Rescue efforts stalled or got mucked up with the government got involved. Look at the mess of things the Federal Government made in New Orleans. Wait, they had the same storm in Mississippi and yet no huge mess - why the difference. Oh, yeah, the Mississippi State Government was on the job and had it covered before the Federal Government even showed up. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

[quote="jeromemsn"]Come on get a grip and realize that making a wave isn't a problem solver it's just a wave to confuse people of whats really going on.[quote]

So tell me - “what’s really going on” Could it be that our federal government has lost it’s sense of honor and is “trying to fundamentally change the United States.” Could it be that 85% of the citizens rejected the Obamacare bill and the “powers that be” shoved it down our throat anyway? Could it be that 75% of the people in AZ support the new Immigration bill only to be sued by the federal government over their actually enforcing Federal Law? Could it be that this Administration has run up a debt which no one alive today has any hopes of paying back and the Federal government continues to spend more money? Oh, there is so much more but tell me which one do you think ticks us off the most. Or is it a little bit of everything. Or maybe we’re just to stupid to know what’s really going on.

No hypothesis on my part, just a clear reading of the events of the day.

Thanks for your advice but I think I have a grip on the situation in this country, if anyone is making waves it sure isn’t me but I for one will not wait until that wave knocks me off my feet. This country was built on Federalism - strong state governments working closely with the people impacted by the decisions and a small, weak central government doing only those things that required unity of effort. Check out your copy of the Constitution, it’s pretty clear what the federal government can and cannot do. Don’t have a copy of the Constitution, go to Heritage.com and they will send you one. Have a good night. lisa

I guess every state could/should succeed. Hurray everybody is happy.........there I got real. Now who is going to pay for all the legislators that will right all of the new laws for all the new little countries, or will the new little countries just keep the currant laws and end up being small little U.S. law following countries.

I say go for it and a big win for the little guy and the constitution of the "United States"